Re: [MIX] PF comments on Mixed Content - accessible indication and user controls


I made them a "SHOULD" rather than "MUST" because I'm not clear if such
APIs always exist and how we can verify conformance to and interoperability
for such a requirement as part of our REC-track process.  So I thought...

"there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course."

But this is likely just my ignorance of the landscape.

Are there examples of similar requirements in other specifications?  If we
are going to make this a MUST, are there particular APIs we can normatively
reference and test frameworks we can use?



On Wed Dec 17 2014 at 12:38:33 PM Michael Cooper <> wrote:

>  Thank for your prompt response to the comments filed by the PFWG. The
> group thinks the edits made largely address the comment. The PFWG has one
> request for the changes implemented: the "SHOULD" statement you added
> should be a "MUST". So the two instances of "... SHOULD also be made
> available through accessibility APIs..." we request be changed to "... MUST
> also be made available through accessibility APIs...".
> The rationale is that these requirements are very important for situations
> to which they apply. They only apply when the relevant conditions stated in
> the rest of the paragraph are active. So they are not across-the-board
> requirements - but are critical when applicable. These relate to the
> requirements of User Agent Accessibility Guidelines success criteria 4.1.1
> and 4.1.2
> (Those are provided for reference,
> not as a request to add those to the specification.)
> Michael
> On 11/12/2014 6:53 AM, Mike West wrote:
> Brad's changes look reasonable to me. I've merged his patch, and will be
> happy to make further changes if deemed necessary.
>  Thanks for reviewing the spec!
>  -mike
>   --
> Mike West <>, @mikewest
> Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München,
> Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der
> Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth
> Flores
> (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Brad Hill <> wrote:
>>  Thank you, Michael.
>>  Please let me know if you believe the following changes are sufficient:
>>  -Brad Hill
>>   From: Michael Cooper <>
>> Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 9:58 AM
>> To: "" <>, WAI Liaison <
>> Subject: [MIX] PF comments on Mixed Content - accessible indication and
>> user controls
>> Resent-From: <>
>> Resent-Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 9:58 AM
>>   The Protocols and Formats Working Group has reviewed the Mixed Content
>> specification and has two comments:
>> 1) Section 4.3 - UI Requirements
>> mixed-content-20140722/#requirements-ux
>> <>
>>  There is a requirement that the UI have a visual indication as to
>> whether the connection is secure or not:
>>  If a request for optionally blockable passive resources which are mixed
>> content is not treated as active content (per requirement #3 above), then
>> the user agent MUST NOT provide the user with a visible indication that the
>> top-level browsing context which loaded that resource is secure (for
>> instance, via a green lock icon). The user agent SHOULD instead display a
>> visible indication that mixed content is present.
>>  It is important to have a requirement that the indication is also
>> available to assistive technology. Current implementations have an image
>> icon that is not made available to accessibility APIs.
>>  2) Section 4.4 - User Controls
>> mixed-content-20140722/#requirements-user-controls
>> <>
>>  There are some MAY statements about user agents offering controls to
>> limit exposure to blockable passive content and active mixed content.  Such
>> controls need to be available to the assistive technology as well.
>> For the PFWG,
>> Michael Cooper

Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2014 21:46:55 UTC